Protection Or Peril? Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds

[spiraleddie]

ScienceDaily (Sep. 30, 2009) — In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

The study was released online this month in the American Journal of Public Health, in advance of print publication in November 2009.
“This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns are protective or perilous,” notes study author Charles C. Branas, PhD, Associate Professor of Epidemiology. “Will possessing a firearm always safeguard against harm or will it promote a false sense of security?”
What Penn researchers found was alarming – almost five Philadelphians were shot every day over the course of the study and about 1 of these 5 people died. The research team concluded that, although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of success are low. People should rethink their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures, write the authors. Suggestions to the contrary, especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a defense against a dangerous environment should be discussed and thoughtfully reconsidered.
A 2005 National Academy of Science report concluded that we continue to know very little about the impact of gun possession on homicide or the utility of guns for self-defense. Past studies had explored the relationship between homicides and having a gun in the home, purchasing a gun, or owning a gun. These studies, unlike the Penn study, did not address the risk or protection that having a gun might create for a person at the time of a shooting.
Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.
These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the study’s controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting. This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes.
“The US has at least one gun for every adult,” notes Branas. “Learning how to live healthy lives alongside guns will require more studies such as this one. This study should be the beginning of a better investment in gun injury research through various government and private agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control, which in the past have not been legally permitted to fund research ‘designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.’”
This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors are also indebted to numerous dedicated individuals at the Philadelphia Police, Public Health, Fire, and Revenue Departments as well as DataStat Inc, who collaborated on the study.
Therese S. Richmond, PhD, CRNP, School of Nursing; Dennis P. Culhane, PhD, School of Social Policy; Thomas R. Ten Have, PhD, MPH, and Douglas J. Wiebe, PhD, both from the School of Medicine, are co-authors.
Journal reference:

Charles C. Branas, Therese S. Richmond, Dennis P. Culhane, Thomas R. Ten Have, and Douglas J. Wiebe. Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault. American Journal of Public Health, 2009; DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099 (http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099)

[2495]

The study estimated

when I see those words I stop reading, because it academic speak for "we know **** all, just having a wild guess really".

[spiraleddie]

well read on because they go on to say "This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes." or maybe you believe that drink driving isnt dangerous

[Alpheus]

As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006.

Oh great, throw the drug dealers and gang bangers in with the ordinary folks getting mugged.

[Thugut]

when I see those words I stop reading, because it academic speak for "we know **** all, just having a wild guess really".

No, that's just how statistics work. It ain't algebra, you never get to say x=5. It's always an interpretation, an estimation.

But it works.

[Hollis]

No, that's just how statistics work. It ain't algebra, you never get to say x=5. It's always an interpretation, an estimation.

But it works.


I guess you never took sadistics............

[commanding]

“The US has at least one gun for every adult,” notes Branas.


Darn, looks like quite a few folks out there are short a gun, cause I am over my quota.

[gaijinsamurai]

ScienceDaily (Sep. 30, 2009) —The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.


“This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns are protective or perilous,” notes study author Charles C. Branas, PhD.....,

I, for one, am skeptical.

[2495]

No, that's just how statistics work. It ain't algebra, you never get to say x=5. It's always an interpretation, an estimation.

But it works.

Really?


This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns are protective or perilous

It makes it as clear and resolved as swamp water thats nine tenths hippo sh1t. What they are trying to tell you is "we know the square root of **** all, and are making it up as we go along to suit our leanings and politcal bent".

[JJB1970]

Thanks for the info Spiraleddie.

As an owner of firearms I actually find the study interesting. I'd actually like to see more studies like that done to test whether the methodologies and the results hold up. A solid national study would be fascinating as well. It would actually be more useful to see more geography covered as well as a more situational breakdown of the data collected.

As for the politics--no matter what the results, the anti-gun lobby and the NRA will always find ways to make hay of it. I have no use for either of those parties. I dislike them both. Both parties make good data hard to find.

[Gunge]

Centers for Disease Control
National Institutes of Health
American Journal of Public Health
Philadelphia

just listing these orgs/city makes me skeptical
what does CDC know about self defense and firearms?
what do self defense and firearms have to do with disease control?
their track record is blatantly anti-2nd amendment and liberal
NIH, now theres a fair and balanced gov't entity(NOT)
AJPH also has their own agenda,
and i dont need to say anything about present day philly, do i?
(no offense intended to philly area members)

just my .02

[3rdMillhouse]

Epidmiologists? 677 cases in a country where more than 100 million people are firearms' owners? Smells like bullsh1t to me.

[Alfacentori]

I, for one, am skeptical.

x2

What is 100% certain however is that those without a gun have virtually a zero percent chance of fighting back against an armed offender.

Alfa

[Zarak]

Oh great, throw the drug dealers and gang bangers in with the ordinary folks getting mugged.

That's a pretty good point. With the crime rate and number of gangs in Philly, a 'random cross-section' of assaults would include a fair number of gangbangers shooting it out and the like.

[Geezah]

BS, there are 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms a year in the US. Not all of these involve pulling the trigger as just showing the firearm itself may be deterrent enough to stop a potential threat.

Here is a good source of information. It is updated daily with defensive firearm cases across the country.
Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog (http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html)

Also, John Lott is another source of credible information,
John Lott (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/)

[GazB]

I saw a program on CNN a few months ago where they took some people with no experience of using guns and took them to a police station and spent the day teaching them about firing guns, from shooting at the range to sitting in class rooms learning some theory.
They secretly gave one person in the class a pistol (that fired paint) without telling anyone else in the group. Without warning they sent a trained policeman into the room with a gun who shot the lecturer and then went straight to the person carrying the gun and shot them. They did this several times and their point was supposed to be that guns are useless when you are attacked.
Obviously of course the scenarios they used had people with very little experience of guns and could not be called trained in any sense of the word.
Also the so called gunman knew exactly who was armed and went straight for them giving very little time to work out what was happening.
I would suggest that in the real world if you hear gunshots while you are at school then you might want a choice as to whether to run or to stay and do something. Without a gun you still have both choices but one will definitely get you killed.
I am not suggesting privately owned guns will completely eradicate crime, but I think the main reasons that aholes go on shooting sprees in schools is because they feel safe in a gun free environment with lots of targets. You never hear about shooting sprees in police stations or at gun ranges.

[Mu-Meson]

You never hear about shooting sprees in police stations or at gun ranges.

No kidding. Criminals aren't smart, but they ain't all completely brain dead. All gun-free zones are is a giant neon sign saying "Large numbers of unarmed, defenseless people. Come and get them!"

As for this study, it smells real fishy.

[Chiptox]

The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.
Perhaps true, though I question the validity of that high ratio.

I would also like to see the rates for stabbings, beatings, and other assaults of gun owners versus the unarmed. I would imagine that legal gun owners (not hoodlum gangbangers) are far more safe from violence in general than the unarmed.

[Geezah]

Perhaps true, though I question the validity of that high ratio.

I would also like to see the rates for stabbings, beatings, and other assaults of gun owners versus the unarmed. I would imagine that legal gun owners (not hoodlum gangbangers) are far more safe from violence in general than the unarmed.

Here are few more interesting links,

How often do Americans use guns for defensive purposes? (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46085)

Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. (http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt)

and the last is probably the most informative,

Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html)

There is a section in there for justifiable homicides.

[brainplay]

Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.I'm sorry but this tidbit invalidates the premise. The only way for this study to come up with those kinds of numbers would be if they averaged the number of people shot in possession and then compared that to a control group who had not been shot while omitting the variable of whether or not the gun was successful in fending off an attacker. That would be a misleading article omitting critical variables. Coming up with a conclusion that is not supported by the data is also bordering on unethical. I mean, no one would do that.


Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.
Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

:cantbeli: Omg they did do that... :cantbeli:

[seraosha]

As a layman, all that study tells me is people in Philly don't know what they are doing with firearms.

[Sakop]

Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.

That means 94% were shot without being in possession of a gun.

[GB_FXST]

Darn, looks like quite a few folks out there are short a gun, cause I am over my quota.

LOL

Goes for me too. :)



Centers for Disease Control
National Institutes of Health
American Journal of Public Health
Philadelphia

just listing these orgs/city makes me skeptical
what does CDC know about self defense and firearms?
what do self defense and firearms have to do with disease control?
their track record is blatantly anti-2nd amendment and liberal
NIH, now theres a fair and balanced gov't entity(NOT)
AJPH also has their own agenda,
and i dont need to say anything about present day philly, do i?
(no offense intended to philly area members)

just my .02

x2



x2

What is 100% certain however is that those without a gun have virtually a zero percent chance of fighting back against an armed offender.

Alfa

QFT. Nothing else needs to be said.

[Marshall_Nord]

Firearms give a false sense of security, unless you are willing to look someone in the eyes and pull the trigger. In my opinion, most people can’t do that.

Overcome this, and you will be more secure with a firearm than without.

[MichaelF]

So, they count gunshot deaths where both attacker and gsw victim possess firearms.


Sooo....no attempt to materially differentiate between the death of a gangbanger with a Tec-9 in his belt...and a CCW-holder who gets shot in the back or killed while trying to reach their weapon at home?

That's some good science, right there.

[Geezah]

Firearms give a false sense of security, unless you are willing to look someone in the eyes and pull the trigger.

I disagree, firearms in most cases become an equalizer, and the majority of those that carry are well prepared to use them.

The idea of shooting someone has gone through my mind many a time, and the only thing that would help me deal with it, is protecting my family.
I could deal with knowing I did something more so than having the tool to defend my family and doing nothing.



In my opinion, most people can’t do that.

You would be surprised, there are over 2.5million people a year that defend themselves with a firearm, but not all cases involve the trigger being pulled.



Overcome this, and you will be more secure with a firearm than without.

I'll meet you halfway on this.

[Hilbert]

Sooo....no attempt to materially differentiate between the death of a gangbanger with a Tec-9 in his belt...and a CCW-holder who gets shot in the back or killed while trying to reach their weapon at home?


Reminds me of a "study" I read about a few years pertaining to children killed by firearms. I later read an article about that same study which revealed how many of the so called "children" were actually 16, 17, and 18 gang thugs.

[GB_FXST]

Firearms give a false sense of security, unless you are willing to look someone in the eyes and pull the trigger. In my opinion, most people can’t do that.

Overcome this, and you will be more secure with a firearm than without.

One should not wield a firearm in self defense if one is not willing to “pull the trigger” and accept the consequences.

[SilentType]

Well thank God our Constitutional rights are not subject to "estimations" that are produced from questionable analysis.

How would folks here view a study that "estimated" that those who assert their right against unreasonable search and seizure are more likely to be convicted of serious criminal charges? Oh no, quick let's give up our right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and allow the police full access all the time for any reason.

[wild_wild_wes]

Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.

These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the study’s controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting. This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes.


Okay I tutored Statistics in college and that methodology makes no f*cking sense.

"Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot."

Jesus X. Christ. They are doing a study to see if having a gun is beneficial in surviving a gun assault, and only 6% of the victims actually were actually armed at the time of the incident?

I call bullsh1t on this "study". Doctors and medical specialists are notoriously anti-gun. These people are just pushing an agenda....and using bad science to do so.